If, God forbid, the Democrats pick up "only" 4 or 5 Senate seats and, say, 15 or 16 House seats, will the Republicans and the media have the gall to frame it as a huge victory for the Republicans and another "mandate" for President Bush, rather than a clear repudiation and a bullet dodged?
I'm guessing that the November 8th narrative will be "Narrowly avoiding total electoral catastrophe can only be good for the Republicans!", but hopefully I won't get the chance to be proven wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i think you know the answer to that.
Yes. Total control of both houses can only be good for the GOP.
Why?
It will make them "hungry" again. And a hungry GOP is actually good for the "News" business because they will need to do something exciting and scandalous to regain power and when they do the press will be there to support ^H^H^H^H^H report on it.
To the press it means more and better scandals dug up or made up by Rovians. Democrats have more "good" sex scandals like blowjobs and straight hetero sex, nothing icky like man on boy or man on dog. I mean they are "proud" of their gays, which just drives the republican's batty.
Well, yeah, obviously retaining control of Congress is better than losing it. But in terms of the election itself, would they be able to spin a near-miss as a victory? I mean, losing 4-5 Senate seats and 15 House seats is not exactly what you would call a positive message from the electorate. But I suspect the media will...
Post a Comment